Ocean acidifcation .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

if your going to quote her you really should not cherry pick what you quote .
Or did you miss the degree of cooling she stated that is as she says is likely to happen in the coming grand minimum .

No I quoted that as well in the NWP thread. Did you miss it?

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ml#post2932464

Originally Posted by newhaul

Heck it will take us warming from the end of it in approx 2050 in till 2600 to get back up to the baseline we are at now.

And it is all due to the sun.
Prove me wrong.

You can't because it is a fact of the real world.

From The Stanford Solar Center (where they study the sun)

Solar Variability & Global Warming


temperature, CO2, and sunspots During the initial discovery period of global climate change, the magnitude of the influence of the Sun on Earth's climate was not well understood. Since the early 1990s, however, extensive research was put into determining what role, if any, the Sun has in global warming or climate change.

A recent review paper, put together by both solar and climate scientists, details these studies: Solar Influences on Climate. Their bottom line: though the Sun may play some small role, "it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes." That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.

From the astrophysicists are Reading University

Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum
Sarah Ineson, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners & Richard A. Wood
Nature Communications volume 6, Article number: 7535 (2015) | Download Citation

Abstract
Any reduction in global mean near-surface temperature due to a future decline in solar activity is likely to be a small fraction of projected anthropogenic warming. However, variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance is linked to modulation of the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations, suggesting the potential for larger regional surface climate effects. Here, we explore possible impacts through two experiments designed to bracket uncertainty in ultraviolet irradiance in a scenario in which future solar activity decreases to Maunder Minimum-like conditions by 2050. Both experiments show regional structure in the wintertime response, resembling the North Atlantic Oscillation, with enhanced relative cooling over northern Eurasia and the eastern United States. For a high-end decline in solar ultraviolet irradiance, the impact on winter northern European surface temperatures over the late twenty-first century could be a significant fraction of the difference in climate change between plausible AR5 scenarios of greenhouse gas concentrations.

From the Royal Society of the UK

However, the available evidence does not indicate pronounced long-term changes in the Sun’s output over the past century, during which time human-induced increases in CO2 concentrations have been the dominant influence on the long-term global surface temperature increase. Further evidence that current warming is not a result of solar changes can be found in the temperature trends at different altitudes in the atmosphere

https://royalsociety.org/topics-poli...es/question-4/

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

And the sun apparently rises in the east and sets in the west .

Fixed it for you.

That only happens in the Ptolemaic model. The earth actually revolves.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2949503]

Originally Posted by jackdale

So where's the part you mentioned about Zharkova's allegiance to the mainstream AGW position? Does the paper rebut that position or is it consistent therewith? Not rhetorical, I know nothing about this scientist except she's an advocate of solar output theories, and that her predictions seem far off in the future.

Fair point about the astrophysics audience.

The paper ignores anthropogenic forces, a factor that newhaul claims would prevent her publication.

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=newhaul;2949493]

Originally Posted by jackdale

And it is all due to the sun.
Prove me wrong.

You can't because it is a fact of the real world.

If the sun was a factor in climate change the stratosphere and troposphere would warm and cool in unison.

They don't; the troposphere is warming, the stratosphere is cooling. Heat is being trapped by GHG's.

[stevensuf]

How come almost every study on co2 has dire and negative outcomes, the sky is falling, sorta thing, never does a study find a positive.


So say co2 causes 2c of heat, well great, extra farm land, more rain, more co2 faster growing crops, more inhabitable areas, maybe mitigate an ice age, etc etc..



It appears all the focus is on doom and gloom, why???


It appears great effort is being made to demonize co2 and its effects, from every possible angle, right down to the smell centers of a fish...


I smell a RAT.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is apparent contradiction between paragraphs 1&2 and paragraph 296 of Vastas' judgement.

I don't think so. As my post quoted earlier, the ruling was not based on any broader sets of constitutional or statutory rights of free speech or intellectual freedom that are found, for example, in the 1st Amend. to the US Const. Instead, the court ruled strictly based on the employment contract, along with the Univ.'s Code of Conduct which the employment contract incorporates. Apparently it was this Code of Conduct which bestowed rights of free speech/intellectual freedom upon which the Court ruled, not any overarching rights under Australian constitutional or statutory law. I believe this is what the Court was trying to make clear in its introductory paragraphs.

I think this may explain what appears to be a discrepancy btwn ¶¶ 1&2 and ¶296. I say "may" because I've only read the relevant parts of the ruling itself, and not the underlying employment contract & Code of Conduct. If you're curious and don't want to await the outcome of the appeal (could be years), you can probably find the brief or pleading the Univ. will (or has already filed) in its appeal, and see if this issue is part of it.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

How come almost every study on co2 has dire and negative outcomes, the sky is falling, sorta thing, never does a study find a positive.

Some parts of Canada and Russia may benefit. That has led many of my fellow Canadians to adopt a "beggar the neighbor" attitude.

BTW - The Medieval Warming Period may have benefitted parts of Europe; for other places in the Northern hemisphere it was disastrous. Read The Great Warming by Brian Fagan.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Fixed it for you.

That only happens in the Ptolemaic model. The earth actually revolves.

actually they both rotate around the barycenter .


But it was a colloquialism.

[Exile]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949513]

Originally Posted by Exile

The paper ignores anthropogenic forces, a factor that newhaul claims would prevent her publication.

That's misleading. The paper does no such thing. The final sentence of the conclusion explicitly states it is not considering anthropogenic forces for purposes of its solar output analysis & predictions. It's impossible to both acknowledge & ignore the exact same facts or theories at the same time.

So I ask again,

[QUOTE=Exile;2949503]

Originally Posted by jackdale

where's the part you mentioned about Zharkova's [overall] allegiance to the mainstream AGW position?

[jackdale]

[QUOTE=Exile;2949529]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That's misleading. The paper does no such thing. The final sentence of the conclusion explicitly states it is not considering anthropogenic forces for purposes of its solar output analysis & predictions. It's impossible to both acknowledge & ignore the exact same facts or theories at the same time.

So I ask again,

An exactly an allegiance.

However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...lobal-warming/

BTW newhaul says this is not acknowledgment of AGW on Zharkova's part.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by stevensuf

How come almost every study on co2 has dire and negative outcomes, the sky is falling, sorta thing, never does a study find a positive.


So say co2 causes 2c of heat, well great, extra farm land, more rain, more co2 faster growing crops, more inhabitable areas, maybe mitigate an ice age, etc etc..



It appears all the focus is on doom and gloom, why???


It appears great effort is being made to demonize co2 and its effects, from every possible angle, right down to the smell centers of a fish...


I smell a RAT.

stuff like the studies listed here ?

CO2 Science

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's misleading. The paper does no such thing. The final sentence of the conclusion explicitly states it is not considering anthropogenic forces for purposes of its solar output analysis & predictions. It's impossible to both acknowledge & ignore the exact same facts or theories at the same time.

I would suggest that "ignore" and "not consider" are rather synonymous.

[newhaul]

[QUOTE=jackdale;2949531]

Originally Posted by Exile

An exactly an allegiance.



https://www.iflscience.com/environme...lobal-warming/

BTW newhaul says this is not acknowledgment of AGW on Zharkova's part.

that sentence is her one to the MMGWC to get published you should actually listen to what she says not what is written on the papers.

https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY

https://youtu.be/_wB46mgJrzI

[Puddleduck]

Originally Posted by Exile

Always lots of shouts of BS and a hundred other derogatory labels, but rarely specific explanations why. It doesn't bother me in the least, but it speaks volumes about the level of discussion.

Ha ha, why? You seemed to denigrate the study without even understanding it or the implications. What’s wrong with calling your comments bs? Do your own homework, then we can discuss. Why do you think this study isn’t important or it’s a waste of money? What even qualifies you to comment, apart from being a cf member? Maybe you can share?

I don’t really expect you too

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

stuff like the studies listed here ?

CO2 Science

CO2 Science, the Heartland funded Idso family website, has about the same reputation for misrepresenting science as NTZ.